RMB:
<<And this then gets into which Spain. The communities of Girona, of
Castile and of C(a)[o]rdoba had very hash[k]afic(al)ly dif[f]er(r)ent
tendencies.>>
The inquisitor was commissioned in Aragon, and was also the prior of the
monastery of Calatayud. The Jews lived in a town called La Almunia de
Dona Godina. I have no idea how to translate these names into Jewish
geography.
David Riceman

On 9/12/2013 9:51 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
> However, there is a school that understands peshat to be intimately
> linked to the literal text, to the disregard of all other sources of
> information. That matches Rashi, who, when he says he came to report
> peshuto shel miqra, tries to fit in a fair amount of midrash that
> most of us would not consider peshat. The reason Rashi can do this
> may be because while we find it incredible that Rivka was three when
> she met the servant of Avraham, there is nothing in the text to
> contradict that peshat. Those of us who feel bewildered consider
> another principle to be important in discovering the peshat, that
> source is common sense and experience. Rashi disregards those and
> thus, as long as the midrash fits neatly with the wording of the
> Torah, we arrive at peshat.
On the contrary, as the LR showed at length (see _Klolei Rashi_), Rashi's
derech is to cite medroshim only when he can't fully explain the text without
it, and even then he only cites so much of the medrash as is necessary to
resolve his problem with the text.
> Finally, there is a literary school of peshat, which will pay
> attention to all kind of attitional textual clues as literary
> devices. The literarists may also combine with any of the other
> notions of peshat above, and Daat Miqra is indeed a commentary that
> is literary but also incorporates common sense, common experience and
> historical sources, along with some TSBP, to arrive a peshat. The
> funny thing is that once you view the text through a literary lens,
> you end up finding that what was previously labelled derash isn't
> that far off the peshat, after all.
Perhaps you would count Malbim here. I see his derech as the ultimate in
"ballebatish", straight as an arrow, he just reads the words carefully
and goes wherever they take him, and then suddenly he'll cite a gemara or
a zohar or Ari Zal and it fits right in with what he's just shown us to be
the literal meaning of the chumash's words.
--
Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
the reason he needs.
- Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

#31-200-19 Arie Folger
Rashbam's most quoted remarks begin Parshas Vayeishev, that his grandfather
Rashi encouraged him to complete and publish a commentary using Rashbam's
more literalist approach. IMHO Rashi himself habitually encouraged all such
ventures. After Rashi's passing, the [youngish?] Rashbam perhaps expected
some criticism.
In contrast to his avowed Pshat agenda, Rashbam in Parshas Shmos refers to
Sod several times. Did he deviate from Pshat?
Rashbam himself gives us the SOD [his words] of the message of the Divine
Message at the Sneh. These passages go to the basic agenda, of Hashem's
initiating Yetzias Mitzraim. [I cannot use "motive", which would imply
insider knowledge of Hashem's thoughts.]
On the Passuk "Ehkeh Asher Ehekeh" - he even refuses to put his words into
writing, using an AT BaSH code. As Chizkuni quotes it straight, I will
"give it away": The encoded passage is [from memory] He regarding Himself
says EHKEH. We say regarding Him relative to him say YihYeh/ YiHVeH - he
always is and always will {Be?}; Vav and Yud can interchange freely as in
Chava/Chaya ; similar Mah Hoveh la'adam,"
Meshech Chochma is referring to this passage, where he asks - alluding to
Beit Yosef's Magid Meisharim - why the Baal Korei is allowed to express
Ehkeh Asher Ehkeh without change, if it is even more esoteric, more
difficult to express, of higher "ontological" level? He refers to this
Rashbam in his answer.
It seems I failed to find the specific Meshech Chochma in the Cooperman
3-4 volume edition, which may mean I looked in the wrong place. Other
versions do have it.
How does this - exceptional - "Rashbam-generated Sod" affect Arye Folger's
argument regarding Pshat in Rashbam?
I anticipate illumination from this Learned Panel.
In #31-200-19 Arie Folger made very incisive points regarding definitions
of Pshat and Allegory. Allegory's abuse or overuse was a major debate in
earlier times. Arie Folger uses Midrash, which requires long books to
explain, such as Darkei Ha'Agada of Heineman, [5759, Masada/Magnes]. Just
Heineman's Chapter 12 - Drasha based on Words - is extremely fascinating
and generates endless questions.
Attempting a functional definition:
Midrash had to fit into a Shabbat afternoon lesson, for many listeners who
were concerned with both Torah and Hashkafa, but lacked literacy and
available texts. The Doreish needed to create a narrative that was both
meaningful and novel and fit into the Pshat of the Pesukim. Meanwhile the
medium and long-term effect must be the raising the level of understanding
of the listeners.
This was the only weekly or regular Drasha aimed at the larger public.
Separate daily lessons, which allowed debate, had a smaller audience, the
Hillel types, broadly speaking.
There was a structure that became standard, and which gave the Doreish some
standing as having the voice of tradition.
Until Medieval times, there was also a "short" Doreish, known as the
Metargeim. The Oleh/Baal Korei read as much as he felt like and knew - at
least three Pesukim etc. It became standardized to a Triennial cycle, still
mentioned in the Mishneh Torah of Rambam. In dominant Bavel, the Annual
Cycle prevailed - with the professional or designated Baal Korei. That
ultimately led to the Metargeim's obsolescence.
Either way - the Metargeim gave a Drush or explanation or translation on
each and every Passuk, good for the Baal Korei to catch his breath. (My
father A"H offered me one before my Bar Mitzvah!). Ditto for the Haftara.
Perhaps repeated Psukim were just skipped.
I strongly suspect that a Sof Passuk became the cue for the Metargeim; the
Metargeim could thus signal to the Baal Korei whether he wished to comment
on that Passuk. Where Chazal say - paraphrasing - "this piece will be read
But Ein Metargamin" - there is some discomfort with us explaining it in a
public venue - we will see - NO SOF PASSUK. [Alternately, the Sof Pasuk
came first and the Metargeim followed suit.]
Minchas Shai lists Aseres Hadivros and Maaseh Reuvein as having "duplicate
sets of cantillations". Sheivet Reuvein may have been red-faced at either
Pshat.
Segueing Reuvein, She'iltos (Mikeitz) points out that Yaakov refused to
accept Reuvein's offer of Areivut guarantee of Binyamin's return - he
considered it invalid. Pachaz kamayim does not indicate future responsible
performance. Yehudah, on the contrary, was trusted to stick out his neck,
based on his prior record. "I stuck my neck out for the young boy's safe
return....". This has much bearing on communal leadership - those who make
sure the job is done, contrast those whose words are forgotten as quickly
as they were uttered.
So the Metargeim refused to be quoted as criticizing Reuvein, and the Baal
Korei had to continue to the next paragraph.
The same "Metargeim" refused to interrupt Hashem's message "I am HVYH who
is your Permanent Watcher who just as I removed you from Mitzrayim I will
always watch you! Don't you dare trust worthless idols..."
Therefore, with no choice the Baal Korei made one long passuk from each
one. [Now known as Taam Elyon].
Another Metargeim took a practical approach - he explained each
standard-length section as it came, not different than every other Passuk
in Torah. Rambam would have strongly agreed with treating all parts of
Torah equally. [Taam Tachton]
Minchat Shai comments - we have two sets of cantillations, two ways of
making the Sof Passuk. We are left with the vestigial evidence, with no
Metargeim.
Machzor Vitri, of post-Rashi France, uses a Metargeim only for special
occasions. Akdamus and Yetziv Pitgam are the last Metargeim intros we
actively use today [Apologies to Teimanim, who keep it alive].
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131209/257755a1/attachment-0001.htm>

I'm looking online at the permissibility of sledding on Shabbat and I see
one of two things:
1) "There is no problem with that"
2) "Athletic activities, bicycle riding, tennis, ball playing, swimming,
skating and sledding are forbidden.
What about sledding would not be allowed on Shabbat assuming one is in an
Eruv?
--
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131210/074f2e51/attachment-0001.htm>

WRT eating out, there are several issues
1) (Original issue) - does one need to follow all of one?s customs when invited out?
Here, RSZA is clear that one does not NEED to - as long as the host is
within ikkar had in - and says that both he and Rav Sonnenfeld ate at
affairs which served meat that they wouldn?t bring to their own house,. He
also paskened for michlala to allow the American students to eat at their
dati leumi families - even though they would be served rabbanut hashgacha?.
2) Is it praiseworthy to refrain (or be strict..) when eating out?
As RZS points out, it is a known minhag for people to refrain completely
from eating out - a la Pinchas ben hair - although there, as rashi points
out, the issue there is NOT kashrut - but the reluctance to be nehene
mishel acherim - NOT that he doubted the kashrut of rabbi yehuda hanasi or
his father - i.e., it is a middat hasidut about deriving benefit from
others (ben adam lecharvero), rather than a midday hasidut in kashrut.
There were people who WERE makpid on their humrot, and therefore on eating out
However, today, normally the issue is not whether I believe that the host
follows my specific humra - but that I don?t believe him (or the mashgiach)
that they actually do follow my standards - regardless of what they say -
and that IS halachically problematic - the halacha against being hoshed
biksherim applies also in the areas of kashrut. There are tshuvot of rav
moshe where he talks about the bizayon of telling a talmud chacham that you
don?t rely on him??It is one thing to say I will only eat a hashgacha with
mashgiach tmidi, yashan, glatt bet yosef, etc, etc etc - another to refuse
to eat a hashgacha given by a known rav who claims to follow your shittot
because you don?t believe (or rather, don?t know enough whether to
believe?) in him.. (or your host?)
I would add that I remember (although can?t find now ) in the Kuzari, that
one of the proof of the validity of torah shebealpe is its uniformity -
that a Jew can go anywhere in the world and eat at the house of a fellow
Jew. the price of the extra humrot and caution is the undermining of the
torah shebe?alpe - creating multiple different torot - and on a communal,
not theological level, undermining the sense of community ( RSZA also held
that on Purim, for mishloach manot, precisely for the reason that they are
supposed to promote a sense of community, that one is meikil on the kashrut
issue).
Therefore, someone who is reluctant to be nehene mishel acherim, tavo alav
bracha. Someone who has special humrot - is another issue. But someone
who just doesn?t trust the reliability of the majority of th community -
seems to be a major halachic issue of hoshed biksherim and bizayon.
Meir Shinnar

At 01:20 PM 12/9/2013, Rena wrote:
>No, you are to understand that the rav of a shul wishes to avoid [like the
>plague] a situation where he can eat in Ploni's home but not Almoni's,
>especially in the US where there are many well-meaning ba'alei tshuva who
>do not yet have quite enough knowledge to know when something is a kashrus
>problem or not.He doesn't wish to hurt anyone's feelings.
I am surprised that you wrote "especially in the US where there are
many well-meaning ba'alei tshuva who do not yet have quite enough
knowledge to know when something is a kashrus problem or not."
Are you implying that this is less of a problem in EY. It seems to
me that kashrus is much more complicated in EY what with Trumos and
Maasros, Shmittah, mehadrin kosher and non-mehadrin
kosher, restaurants that claim to be kosher but have no
supervision, etc. From http://www.kosherinjerusalem.com/
"Finally a site dedicated to helping you navigate the tricky waters
of keeping kosher in Jerusalem." and "Have you heard that the
rabanut issued a warning about fraudulent mehadrin
hechshers?" Also, what about all of the problems
regularly reported by Jerusalem Kosher News
(http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/)? There seem to be a lot of them.
My impression is that kashrus in EY is even a challenge for those who
were brought up religious. A friend of mine who grew up in EY
recently wrote to me regarding kashrus in EY, "Everything there is a problem."
I am the first to acknowledge that I have no first hand knowledge of
the kashrus situation in EY, but from here in the US it seems to me
that kashrus is much more complicated in EY than in the US.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131209/b593d12f/attachment-0001.htm>

At 03:37 PM 12/9/2013, R. Meir Shinnar wrote:
>However, today, normally the issue is not
>whether I believe that the host follows my
>specific humra - but that I don?t believe him
>(or the mashgiach) that they actually do follow
>my standards - regardless of what they say - and
>that IS halachically problematic - the halacha
>against being hoshed biksherim applies also in
>the areas of kashrut. There are tshuvot of rav
>moshe where he talks about the bizayon of
>telling a talmud chacham that you don?t rely on
>him??It is one thing to say I will only eat a
>hashgacha with mashgiach tmidi, yashan, glatt
>bet yosef, etc, etc etc - another to refuse to
>eat a hashgacha given by a known rav who claims
>to follow your shittot because you don?t believe
>(or rather, don?t know enough whether to believe?) in him.. (or your host?)
Sadly we have seen all too often that hashgachas
given by those who are supposed to be reliable
turn out not to be. The money issue is a real
one. I personally am not comfortable relying on
any private hashgacha save for two that I have
been told by sources I trust are reliable. I am
not saying that this is halacha, but I am
uncomfortable with a rov being paid directly by
the person he supervises. It just does not sit well with me.
>I would add that I remember (although can?t find
>now ) in the Kuzari, that one of the proof of
>the validity of torah shebealpe is its
>uniformity - that a Jew can go anywhere in the
>world and eat at the house of a fellow
>Jew. the price of the extra humrot and caution
>is the undermining of the torah shebe?alpe -
>creating multiple different torot - and on a
>communal, not theological level, undermining the
>sense of community ( RSZA also held that on
>Purim, for mishloach manot, precisely for the
>reason that they are supposed to promote a sense
>of community, that one is meikil on the kashrut issue).
Kashrus today is much more complicated than it
was in ancient times, even than it was 20 years
ago. Ask those involved in hashgachas. I sent
out something about whey and orange juice
manufactured on dairy equipment not long ago. My
understanding is that these items were not problematic 20 years ago.
>Therefore, someone who is reluctant to be nehene
>mishel acherim, tavo alav bracha. Someone who
>has special humrot - is another issue. But
>someone who just doesn?t trust the reliability
>of the majority of th community - seems to be a
>major halachic issue of hoshed biksherim and bizayon.
Today one needs access to and technical knowledge
to give supervision. Sadly, not everyone
involved in kashrus has this expertise.
The following is from page 89 of Timothy Lytton's
book Kosher. (Dr. Avram Pollak is President of
the Star-K. See http://www.star-k.org/cons-abou-support.htm)
Furthermore, Dr. Avrom Pollak of Star-K doubts
that Hasidic rabbis who are granting superkosher
certification actually have such high standards to begin with.
"Sometimes we'll ask them questions, and it's very evident that all they're
doing is certifying the owner of an establishment that they personally
may know. And they've agreed to give him a certification based on his say-so.
But the rabbi has very little independent knowledge of what goes on
in the company."
My understanding of someone being considered
reliable when it comes to hashgacha is that he
has the necessary knowledge to make informed
decisions. If he does not, and one does not rely
on his hashgacha, then I do not consider this
to be hoshed biksherim, because they have no business giving hashgacha.
Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131209/c4ecf77d/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:
> I am not trying to single out this post. I've always had the
> same question about advertisements which proclaim "strictly
> kosher" as if being "kosher" isn't good enough.
R' Zev Sero answered:
> It means not relying on the heterim that are available to
> eat something that you're not sure is really kosher, even
> if you're mostly sure, and al pi din that's good enough.
> E.g. not eating anything on which a shayla was raised, even
> if the psak was that it's OK.
I have two responses. First:
Suppose a talmid of Rav Moshe Feinstein gives a hechsher to a product that
uses Cholov Hacompanies. Are you saying that this product cannot be marked
"strictly kosher", because the Rav Hamachshir isn't *really* sure that it
is kosher; he's only *mostly* sure that it is kosher?
I would think that there's nothing wrong with calling it "strictly kosher",
because according to the halacha as he sees it, there's absolutely nothing
not-kosher about it. My point is that (with the sole exception of those in
the Israeli rabbinate who publicly admit that they look for leniencies)
there's really not difference between claiming to be kosher, and claiming
to be strictly kosher: Either you're sure that it's kosher, or you can't
claim that it is.
Response #2:
I never understood the whole business about "not strictly kosher" refers to
"anything on which a shayla was raised". If this were so, then if a
mashgiach has a shayla, and his rav hamachshir paskens that it's OK, then
they'd have to remove the word "atrictly" from their advertisements, their
signs, and their labels. Or just get rid of the food and don't bother
asking the shayla. I can't imagine that ANYONE acts like this for EVERY
single shayla that they have.
What RZS describes may have been the definition of "glatt" once upon a
time, and even then, only for a very limited range of specific shaylos. But
in today's reality, Occam tells me that "strictly" and "glatt" are mere
marketing terms.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodahhttp://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 201
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)